Foucault’s Pendulum – Umberto Eco

Rating: 5 stars

I read Foucault’s Pendulum because it seems with every day that conspiracy theories enter our lives ever more. I thought that well, a book by that big famous author might give me some insights and be an interesting read.

The story is a little bit of this and a little bit of that. My biggest complaint is probably the beginning, where the narration begins inside the mind of a seemingly crazy man who goes inside a museum of science in Paris. Then the story backtracks and explains how it got to that point. It’s my least favorite part because when it gets explained later, the narrator isn’t nearly as combative or singleminded as he seemed then. It matches several later portions that are in a ‘frenzy’, so I would presume it was written later or after the actual beginning of the story. It’s a trope (at least these days) and one that I’m not a big fan of.

The story contains a simple narrative that wouldn’t seem to use up the length of the book, but Eco goes into fantastic detail about things that are related to conspiracy theories. Near the chronological beginning of the story, the protagonist, Casaubon, meets one of the other two fellow editors, Belpo (the other being Diotallevi, a nod towards the theology in the Italian phrase, Dio ti allevi, may God lift you up), the three of whom will be the good guys. Well, kinda. They’re decidedly not on the side of the crazies… kinda (again). Casaubon is studying the Templars, and Belpo talks about how there are idiots, narcissists and the unhinged, and the last of them are the only ones who talk about the Templars. That serves as the background as Casaubon meet a mysterious lieutenant who gives them a hint about what the Templar have really been up to before disappearing until near the end of the book.

Eventually, the three editors make up the Plan, a synthesis of all the conspiracy theories they’ve heard and the lieutenant’s ideas. It ends up badly, with all three of them ending up betrayed and dead (or presumably, since the book ends before Casaubon dies).

I’m greatly simplifying the story, but the events of the story are very short (about 1/4 or less of the book), and the rest is hypothesizing and information, more like the research you’d turn up if you decided to figure out all the occult/wackiness of theories about who really is behind 9/11 or the JFK assassination and concluded that it was actually a conspiracy between different hierarchies of aliens in a galactic bureaucracy.

For that reason, most of the book shouldn’t be judged along the criteria of narrative, character or otherwise. If you went in expecting such, then you’ve found the wrong book. It should be judged on the qualities of metaphysics and more importantly theology. It acts on two levels. One is the ravings of the Diabolicals, the name the protagonist and his friends give the people obsessed with the occult so much so that they will do anything to learn more, but at the same moment it examines a more gnostic or talmudic appreciation of the truth as an entity separate of individual facts. It ends up pretty interesting and with a simple and clear conclusion: the Diabolicals (whether they want to know when the Templars will achieve world domination or what’s the truth behind Cosmo Pizza) seek the unknown, not knowledge, and the second they learn something it no longer is valuable to them.

Another interesting comment is that a lot of them are based in or associated with antisemitic ideas. They rely on simplistic truths, ignoring words and bending their meaning in order to, as Belbo writes in a private document on his computer, absolve them of their inabilities. If the conspiracy theories are true, if the Plan is true, then they can’t be at fault for any of their failings. It is because of someone conspiring against them, not because of factors beyond their control.

When we do get to the more traditional narrational aspects of the book, the story isn’t too developed or long, so for that part, it’s probably not too great. The characters, however, are all very interesting and dynamic. Even if that’s all I read the book for, I would’ve been happy about it. However, caveat emptor, it’s what I call a European narrative. It has a little missing off the beginning and end of the story, so if you want those, then you might be disappointed. I wasn’t.

I enjoyed the book and hope you do too.